i am afrraid that the sudy is not a scientific one according to any objective criteria.overall there is no significant difference between the two groups..The base level of the patients was 4 the final level was 6

5 gives a diagnosis of CFS and 6 does not.There is no objective difference between the two.There was no statistical tests actually carried out.you cant perform statistics on subjective parameters.dr Lerner decided that an improvement of 1 on his scale was significant.According to his own data a move from 5 to 6 would be considered significant.I submit that the only difference between 5 and 6 is the wording

There is a lot more to this illness than fatigue.

If his hypothesis was to test that ebv causes CFS then i,m afraid that

i the evidence Normal is an EIPS level above 5

His view is contrary to many published studies who have found that EBV is either not present or not causative

He should have used the null hypothesis as all scientific studies do

If you decide before hand that a change of one ona sunjective scale of 1 to 10 is significant a change of 1 will give an enormously low p value without any significan clinical benefit.

I am only applying scientific criteria for analysing a clinical study.

I would be happy to post the criteria if that would be useful

The lowest scores the patients had was 4 the maximum 6.The differences between 5 and 6 are not clinically significant.In 6 the wording is may hold down a job(a subjective assessment) not can which is an objective one

If you look at the graphs the error bars overlap so the differences as a whole are not statistically significant.They have chosen an arbitary end point when the responses clearly fluctuated over time

People with the kind of infections in Lerners study are ill.An EBV infection does put people in bed.A person with an EBV infection will easily qualify for a diagnosis of CFS under the FUKUDA criteria particularily if the Dr in question believes that EBV causes CFS.Unfortunately it does not mean that they have CFS in any objective sense.People with these infections get better over time without any interventions.This is why a placebo arm is essential .This is the only way of judging the effect of the treatment.Splitting the population into two kinds of CFS based on the type and pattern of infection they were shown to have has no scientific basis what soever.It is based on the assumption that all people with infections have CFS.From that point the study becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.The study fulfills none of the objective requiements ofa scientific clinical study

Click to expand...

Honestly, I think you're missing the forest for the trees

No scientific difference between groups - that's true; there was no statistically scientific difference in the outcomes between Group A and B and that's a good point. I don't think based on this paper, at least as far as I read it, Dr. Lerner can say he has statistical evidence indicating that you must treat other infections as well as herpes infections in order for your treatment of herpes infections to be effective.

Big Difference in Treatment Overall - the main thrust of the paper, however, was not to demonstrate that fact - the main test of the paper was to demonstrate that long-term antiviral treatment in patients with nonpermissive herpesvirus infections is effective and statistically it accomplished that in spades. The p value for the difference between baseline EIPS and Last EPIS was <.00001 - which is n incredible outcome for a treatment trial. I imagine it was so robust as there was so much data in the study - there was no way that that finding was going to be due to chance.

5 gives a diagnosis of CFS and 6 does not.There is no objective difference between the two.There was no statistical tests actually carried out.you cant perform statistics on subjective parameters.

Click to expand...

Again I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Yes, you can argue that one element of the scales could be described differently and decide because of that that the entire scale is no good but on the whole the scale presents a clear trajectory from poor health to better health, and it has been validated in a prior study against standard fatigue scales and it worked as well as they did or better.

There is a lot more to this illness than fatigue.

Click to expand...

Nobody doubts that but the EIPS it's scale isn't a measure of fatigue - its a measure of functionality - which, of course, is CFS patients big goal. This study shows CFS patients going from spending most of their time in bed on average to spending most of their time out of bed and even working. It's much more than a fatigue scale.

His view is contrary to many published studies who have found that EBV is either not present or not causative

Click to expand...

Most studies have not looked for nonpermissive infections ie the early antigens to EBV. In fact the few studies that have looked for them - have found them. Check out Lerner's previous studies as well as a Natelson study. Dr. Glaser also believes these kinds of infections play a key role in CFS. I believe he has a small study out.

If you decide before hand that a change of one ona sunjective scale of 1 to 10 is significant a change of 1 will give an enormously low p value without any significan clinical benefit.

Click to expand...

Yes, if its an the arbitrary choice - but then again, while the EIPS scale may not be perfect -its hardly arbitrary! You're suggesting that there is basically no difference between the points on the scale - I think most people who look at it can quickly see that there is a significant difference between the points on the scale; this isn't rocket science - you go from 0 bedridden to 3 in bed 22-24 hours a day to five in working. I think a lot of people think that the jump from 4 to 5 is way too high; you go from 18-24 hours a day to working a sedentary job with difficulty. But that only buttresses the study's findings because most of the people in the study took that leap - it is that leap which people are looking for. That is the fundamental finding of the study - the average patient went from mostly bedridden to working and with enough energy left over to engage in other activities. Questions about the individual scales can't hide that fact.

People with the kind of infections in Lerners study are ill.An EBV infection does put people in bed.A person with an EBV infection will easily qualify for a diagnosis of CFS under the FUKUDA criteria particularily if the Dr in question believes that EBV causes CFS.Unfortunately it does not mean that they have CFS in any objective sense.People with these infections get better over time without any interventions.This is why a placebo arm is essential .

Click to expand...

You're suggesting that these people did not have CFS. That's an interesting argument we usually see associated with the Oxford definition and CBT - the patients got better on CBT because they did not have CFS. I don't think that applies here. Dr. Lerner is a well known CFS physician -most of the people who see him presumably know they have CFS - on average they've been going to doctors for 4-7 years as I remember. Again, Dr. Lerner is not testing for typical EBV infections; he is looking for a certain type of infection that few physicians look for.

Everyone with that pathology in terms of viral infection would eventually recover anyway.

Click to expand...

I think the patients in Dr. Lerner's practice would strongly disagree that they would naturally get better over time - as would CFS patients in any doctors office. Are you suggesting at the fourth year that people with EBV infections are suddenly prone to get better?

I agree that placebo would be helpful altho I would note that the metanalysis study Wessely et al did found that rates of placebo in CFS were actually lower than normal. Lerner was working without federal funding (and honestly I wonder how you're going to do a year long placebo controlled trial).

No scientific difference between groups - that's true; there was no statistically scientific difference in the outcomes between Group A and B and that's a good point. I don't think based on this paper, at least as far as I read it, Dr. Lerner can say he has statistical evidence indicating that you must treat other infections as well as herpes infections in order for your treatment of herpes infections to be effective.

Big Difference in Treatment Overall - the main thrust of the paper, however, was not to demonstrate that fact - the main test of the paper was to demonstrate that long-term antiviral treatment in patients with nonpermissive herpesvirus infections is effective and statistically it accomplished that in spades. The p value for the difference between baseline EIPS and Last EPIS was <.00001 - which is n incredible outcome for a treatment trial. I imagine it was so robust as there was so much data in the study - there was no way that that finding was going to be due to chance.

According to Jasons studies the majority of patients diagnosed according to the Fukuda dont have the illness which has PEM as mandatory>Epstein Barr does not cause PEM.EBV does not cause the Neuroendocrine manifestations associated with CCC ME,cfs in the latent phase. There are only two kinds of EBV infection acute and chronic.The same applies for herpes

Again I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Yes, you can argue that one element of the scales could be described differently and decide because of that that the entire scale is no good but on the whole the scale presents a clear trajectory from poor health to better health, and it has been validated in a prior study against standard fatigue scales and it worked as well as they did or better.

Nobody doubts that but the EIPS it's scale isn't a measure of fatigue - its a measure of functionality - which, of course, is CFS patients big goal. This study shows CFS patients going from spending most of their time in bed on average to spending most of their time out of bed and even working. It's much more than a fatigue scale.

Most studies have not looked for nonpermissive infections ie the early antigens to EBV. In fact the few studies that have looked for them - have found them. Check out Lerner's previous studies as well as a Natelson study. Dr. Glaser also believes these kinds of infections play a key role in CFS. I believe he has a small study out.

Yes, if its an the arbitrary choice - but then again, while the EIPS scale may not be perfect -its hardly arbitrary! You're suggesting that there is basically no difference between the points on the scale - I think most people who look at it can quickly see that there is a significant difference between the points on the scale; this isn't rocket science - you go from 0 bedridden to 3 in bed 22-24 hours a day to five in working. I think a lot of people think that the jump from 4 to 5 is way too high; you go from 18-24 hours a day to working a sedentary job with difficulty. But that only buttresses the study's findings because most of the people in the study took that leap - it is that leap which people are looking for. That is the fundamental finding of the study - the average patient went from mostly bedridden to working and with enough energy left over to engage in other activities. Quibbles about the individual scales can't hide that fact.

Click to expand...

The decision to call a change of 1 point on the(subjective) EIPS scale significant is entirely arbitary.

All learners study shows from a scientific point of view that people with pathogenic infections are ill.They get better.No one knows whether they got better with the drugs or naturally.

There is no placebo arm so no conclusion is scientifically possible.

There is no statistically significant differences between any of the groups in outcomes.

the point is that a value of 5 gives a diagnosis of CFS (entirely arbitary) and six does not.

There is no clinical difference between 5 and 6.

People with EBV infections are ill they do get better with or without antvirals.

The assumption is that these patients had CFS in the first place.

It is easy for a patient with EBV to make a fukuda definition of CFS.This is especially true if the doctor making the diagnosis believes the virus is cauative.

He has not come anywhere near to demonstrating that that in this study.

The study was carried out to test his hypothesis that EBV caused CFS.

I really cant see how it could be called a successful study when there is no way of distinguishing cause from effect or any objective method of evaluating treatment efficacy.

The EIFS scale has never been independently validated in any way. P values are not a measure of treatment effectiveness but merely whether the result has been achieved by chance or not

According to Jasons studies the majority of patients diagnosed according to the Fukuda dont have the illness which has PEM as mandatory>Epstein Barr does not cause PEM.EBV does not cause the Neuroendocrine manifestations associated with CCC ME,cfs in the latent phase. There are only two kinds of EBV infection acute and chronic.The same applies for herpes

The decision to call a change of 1 point on the(subjective) EIPS scale significant is entirely arbitary.All learners study shows from a scientific point of view that people with pathogenic infections are ill.They get better.No one knows whether they got better with the drugs or naturally.There is no placebo arm so no conclusion is scientifically possible.There is no statistically significant differences between any of the groups in outcomes. the point is that a value of 5 gives a diagnosis of CFS (entirely arbitary) and six does not.There is no clinical difference between 5 and 6. People with EBV infections are ill they do get better with or without antvirals.The assumption is that these patients had CFS in the first place.It is easy for a patient with EBV to make a fukuda definition of CFS.This is especially true if the doctor making the diagnosis believes the virus is cauative.He has not come anywhere near to demonstrating that that in this study.The study was carried out to test his hypothesis that EBV caused CFS. I really cant see how it could be called a successful study when there is no way of distinguishing cause from effect or any objective method of evaluating treatment efficacy. The EIFS scale has never been independently validated in any way.

all the patients had symptoms of epstein Barr infection.They were given antivirals and they got better.whether they would have got better without treatment no one knows.He is equating having EBV to having CFS.EBV would get nowhere near producing the Cytokine pattern produced in Dr Klimas,s study.

all the patients had symptoms of epstein Barr infection.They were given antivirals and they got better.whether they would have got better without treatment no one knows.He is equating having EBV to having CFS.EBV would get nowhere near producing the Cytokine pattern produced in Dr Klimas,s study.

Click to expand...

The study I posted above did have a placebo arm, the patients were diagnosed according to the CDC Fukuda criteria and had been sick more than 3 years. EBV is present in 90 percent of the population. I don't understand why you are saying "they only were sick with EBV, not CFS" when there is no such diagnosis as chronic EBV--that's what CFS used to be called.

The study I posted above did have a placebo arm, the patients were diagnosed according to the CDC Fukuda criteria and had been sick more than 3 years. EBV is present in 90 percent of the population. I don't understand why you are saying "they only were sick with EBV, not CFS" when there is no such diagnosis as chronic EBV--that's what CFS used to be called.

Click to expand...

what i am essentially saying is that correlation is not causation.he is labelling a subset with CFS assuming causation when chronic infection with epstein Barr is asymptomatic.If someone has glandular fever then they do have all the symptom of CFS.it does not mean they have the illness.the only way of distinguishing the two is PEM.Most physicians would test for Epstein Barr.if that is positive then that is an exclusion criteria for diagnosing CFS.So by definition active epstein Barr precludes a diagnosis of CFS even under Fukuda. i hope I was clearer that time.sorry for any confusion

This is the relevant part of the FUKUDA paper

Background
The chronic fatigue syndrome is a clinically defined condition (1-4) characterized by severe disabling fatigue and a combination of symptoms that prominently features self-reported impairments in concentration and short-term memory, sleep disturbances, and musculoskeletal pain. Diagnosis of the chronic fatigue syndrome can be made only after alternative medical and psychiatric causes of chronic fatiguing illness have been excluded.

If patients have Epstein Barr virus then they cannot receive a diagnosis of CFS because Epstein Barr is a recognised medical cause of fatigue.Thus a Epstein Barr subset of CFS is impossible.

Well, I'm STILL thrilled.....and I don't give a rats-A@# if the so-called study was done by Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck...I'm just glad that SOMEBODY is attempting to offer treatments (to those willing to try them) AND a bit of HOPE!

Dr. Chia has ALSO been treating hundreds of patients with a variety of anti-virals for some time now...with variable success rates. No STUDIES - no FUNDING - no HELP!

Dr. Chia keeps plodding along, with a one-track mind set and a blind determination - as nobody will pay his work the attention it deserves - presumably because it's not exciting, brand new or groundbreaking data - just the same stuff that's been around for a long time (enteroviruses etc. - difficult to find - difficult to treat) - without getting the focus and the funding it should. (and don't forget Dr. Montoya's work!)

But some of his patients ARE improving - including (even if it's in what some might consider "small" ways AND subjective AND even anecdotal)....me.

I know that Good Science is crucial and must be observed...but I wish we had more people willing to be "Guinea Pigs"...as WAITING for that "good science" to miraculously happen means it may not - in MY lifetime!

Click to expand...

I'm with you Jackie. I know a half dozen people who have recovered -- and maybe 2-3 that are steadily improving -- and that gives me hope and inspiration. Dr. Klimas has also mentioned that she's had patients with 'COMPLETE RESOLUTION' -- so it does happen, albeit rarely. I think it would be a lot less rare if we all had access -- and funds -- to get the testing and treatments that have helped and are helping patients get better.

thanks cort! As someone that is using av's... my "take-away" (what I personally find so useful in this study) is that it's showing that LONG TERM treatment can make a difference! If you look at Chia's work and what he says..."emerging evidence shows that a number of infections can trigger and possibly perpetuate the symptoms of ME/CFS. The INITIAL INFECTION can create an IMBALANCE in the IMMUNE SYSTEM which allows the PERSISTANCE of the offending virus AND may also REACTIVATE pre-existing DNA VIRUSES, such as VZV (shingles), EBV, CMV, HHV-6, Chlamydia Pneumoniae, Parvo Virus B-19, Q Fever, Brucella Species, Toxoplasma, Borrelia Burgdoferi...(all having been reported to cause me/cfs.)

Enteroviruses (EV, Coxsackie B, and Echo) are also CLEARLY IMPLICATED triggers/causes of ME/CFS. Viral Genome (RNA) was found in the blood and muscle of PWC's by several researchers - (although when a NIH investigator couldn't produce the same results - this discrepancy led to a shift in the paradigm in the mid '90's. NO more investigation, no more funding, case closed!) Until now (thanks to dr. chias persistance)...the focus is back on! (if you can FIND the affecting pathogen - treat it! You wouldn't believe the places he's found EV's!)

There are NO FDA approved Antivirals against EV's (although Ive heard that a new drug may be ready soon, ...can't remember the name) But the Lerner study SHOWS (what some patients have long been aware of)...that LONG TERM AVS CAN treat non-permissive Herpes (at least) effectively....IF taken in higher doses and for long enough....reducing the viral load on the overall system.

As for "naturally getting better anyway"...I beg to differ! There is evidence that I may have contracted MY me/cfs while in the womb (my mothers 7th month of pregnancy). Extremely ill from the time of my birth, ill as a young child, early teens...intermittent/sporadic remissions for young adulthood, then relapsing for my 30's,40's, 50's!!...and moving into my 60's.

The improvements I have made (granted they are mostly in cognitive/memory etc. - but quite significant - AND I am no longer bedridden/but still housebound - which I'm very greatful for - no complaints here!) are entirely due to my AV use.

I purposefully took NO OTHER TREATMENT, staying at 3200mg. per day (other than meds for Hypertension, and atenolol for OI). With my history I guarantee that it's no coincidence that I'm improving while on the AV's (even though acyclovir has NOT shown impressive results in some "studies"...remember the 30 day acyclovir study?!)...I don't believe that I'm "just naturally getting better"!
What "we" NEED are drugs targeting these viruses specifically....and funded research/studies (chia gets no money for research/studies and was turned down by the cfids, for example...dont know why)

(just saw your post, danny...HI! the costs are a problem, i know.
I'll be honest...acyclovir wasn't the FIRST choice for me, BUT acyclovir (which is MUCH cheaper AND was covered by my HMO INS. and Valtrex was NOT) was offered as an alternative...and I jumped at the chance! It requires frequent dosing (I take 8 pills per day - 2 at a time to get my 3200mgs)...but at least I can afford it, i have my liver/kidney function tests done regularly - so far, so good!...drink lots of water..and although it can be tough on one's stomach for some (like me!)...i cant complain.

I wanted (asked for) interferon..but my ins. said No. I'll try just about anything (if I can find the money to do it!)...i figure that at my age and because I've been ill for so long I have nothing to lose! I realise that it's much harder for a younger person to want to "experiment"....without impressive "studies" to back one's decision.

Oh..and i just had my Tcells checked recently as well...cd8=normal now!, cd4=surprisingly high...which does MEAN something as I do have severe chronic shingles(vzv)/reactivation of hsv1 (and as I'm not the only one this is happening to on AVs') and could be an important piece of the puzzle.

It seems to me we should encourage all those who have devoted against impossible odds their research and time into this and not criticise (except the Psychos) More pleasure at the advance of understanding of this awful disease should be welcomed for all.

The report is a bit much for my concentration ability this past few days, therefore it's highly likely I'm missing some important facts that would address my questions. I will have to read it again when more clear. But for now, there are a few things that come to mind immediately for me with this study....

First of all this is good news for many pwc's and great news as another contribution to unraveling the puzzle of ME/CFS. It also lends to solidifying the infectious cause position. One concern I have is the difference in responsiveness between groups A & B. The reported high rate of responsiveness is with group A, those with Herpes infections only. The responsiveness is much lower for group B, those with Herpes & co-infections. Well, I have been of the belief that most pwc's DO have Herpes & co-infections, and according to this studies conclusion, would therefore fall into the less likely to respond category. But the study does suggest that those fitting the group A criteria have a really good chance of recovery with this treatment, and that's good news for that group at least.

My own experience as a person with highly reactivated CMV and non herpes co-infections is that treating any of the re-activated infections decreases the symptoms of illness significantly. My experience of treating CMV with Vistide is a great example....The drug is only effective for the CMV and not the co-infections, yet I made dramatic improvements with Tx. Of course relapse is a concern if I don't get the co-infections dealt with and that's been my focus since going off the Vistide in December.

This study at the very least puts many more pieces of the puzzle into place. Soon the xmrv story will add more to the puzzle. I think that Dr Lerner is a man of Integrity and, I feel we are extremely fortunate to have him on our side. I'm thankful for his devotion and years of work on our behalf.

It's been a long while since I read this paper and I don't have the energy at the moment to pull it up but it's published out there. The scale was part of a study he did with Valtrex I believe a few years ago.

Patient and physician-reported scales are used in many areas of medicine but usually they have undergone some process of evaluation before they are accepted as useful and I did not see some of the critical factors used to evaluate scales in Lerner's paper.

Two important factors are:
1. Validity - does the scale actually reflect what it is suppose to measure? does it reflect patient experience? This ties into the point made by Gerwyn to this scale and also by others in regards to Dr. Bell's scale. Some people have a hard time seeing how movement in one point equates to actual significance in their lives and others think mental/ physical function is lumped too much together (e.g. you can be better mentally but not physically or vice-versa) I think this is where the calorie comparisons came into play.

2. Reliability - if you give the scale to the same person twice in one day or if you had two different MDs rate the same person on the same day, would the scale fluctuate much merely due to different interpretation rather than true changes?

3. Response - this ties in with #2 above to some degree. How sensitive is the scale to true clinical changes? Would it pick it up? And how well does it pick it up?

I understand that Lerner and his team are limited by funds and resources but these above matters should be considered when using a new scale. One alternate possibility would have been to use an established functional scale (many out there) concurrent with their own scale to compare.

Also, I agree having no controls is an issue and Kati's point about treating patients slightly later would have been one way to have controls. Another way would have been to follow those folks who dropped out of Lerner's clinic and see how they are doing. As the study stands, it only tells us about the people who continued to see him so it's self-reinforcing. (You improve, you stay in the clinic, you get counted.) We don't know the denominator -- e.g. all the people who went to see him but dropped out due to not improving or developing drug adverse effects or were improving but ran out of $.

With a retrospective study, you can't do the above but maybe they can do some of this with current and future patients.

Wonderful stories, sickofcfs! great news re your uncle (if I can do four years I can certainly do eight - or more! as he has done!) Often...all we have to hang on to ARE the anecdotes of others fighting this disease! And yours and others stories help so much!

The sometimes subtle improvements "we" report, are difficult to convey to others not experiencing them! We are talking about improvements that may take place over months to YEARS! When you're living through the process you do question yourself as to what you are REALLY feeling (...how much better do I consistantly FEEL?)...but after a time, you generaly know the difference in overall improvement.

I try to be as "self-analytical" as I can be (without taking the sheer joy out of feeling better!). I look for "other" answers for the differences...such as have I improved my surroundings to make my life easier? am I limiting situations that make me feel worse? but in the end I always come back to the AV's as the cause - for me, anyway. And, like you and your daughter...I wouldn't give them up for all the world (I DO hope to be able to reduce my dosage at some point...but am in no hurry for that right now).

I'm not expecting a CURE (that's not possible at this point, imo - and we still have the spectre of XMRV to contend with - I would imagine I'd test pos. but don't know yet)....but moving forward (even an inch at a time..and any reduction of PEM - which I forgot to mention is ALSO improving for me)....is a big deal.

Some might think that because I still experience shingles (and chronically so AND on both sides of my body at once) means that I'm not improving in important ways...but I don't agree. In fact, I sort of feel "lucky" that I have them - as they are irrefutable evidence that I am riddled with herpes!...and at the same time I have these wonky tcell counts and yet a clear-cut improvement (and those around me have judged this as well) in my ability to read/write/comprehend/memorize.

I scored so badly on some diagnostic neuro/physchiatric tests with my neuro that I was actually dx'd with MCI, and given a script for Aricept/Namenda (which I didn't take), and told that I might be "pre-dementia/alzheimers...and yet some time later (after continuing and raising my AV dosage)... he reversed his dx! How many times does THAT occur?

These are very nasty and persistant viruses we are dealing with (they are referred to as "Stealth" and "Smoldering" viruses for good reason - they actually "talk" to each other - as they are taking over!), and as such, are incredibly difficult to track down and to treat! Although I haven't had this tested yet...my doc said that if he tested my DNA TODAY...he felt sure that he would find VZV in it! Genetics play a HUGE role, imo. (I have several blood relatives with me/cfs...and this may have gone back several generations in my family)

(BTW: chronic EV's, CMV, HHV-6, EBV, VZV, HSV1, that's me!) thanks again for the stories and so happy for you and your daughter's improvements...the big ones are great but even the "little ones" add up!

We know there are apparently healthy people who test positive for XMRV. We know retroviruses generally affect immune response. It is possible that 75% of those with such problems have coinfections. It is even possible that if you excluded all those with coinfections the carefully-defined clinical disease would disappear.

Healthy people do not spend a lot of time consulting doctors. This negative selection effect makes it hard to determine actual onset of a disease which does not appear immediately life-threatening. My current working hypothesis is that the first reported signs and symptoms may not mark the onset of XMRV infection. They may correspond to coinfections.

After decades of watching enthusiasts for different possible causes at war with each other, I'm not interested in watching replays. When you come right down to it, we've had the knowledge for a long time that most people with EBV infection either recover without treatment or respond to treatment quickly. We now know that some people who do not respond quickly will respond to longer treatment. What is missing is an explanation for why they are different.

There are similar patterns of infection by HCMV, HHV-6 or even HSV. We have had no clue as to why, in a very few cases, a common virus can result in encephalitis or myocarditis, just to name two serious consequences.

The report is a bit much for my concentration ability this past few days, therefore it's highly likely I'm missing some important facts that would address my questions. I will have to read it again when more clear. But for now, there are a few things that come to mind immediately for me with this study....

First of all this is good news for many pwc's and great news as another contribution to unraveling the puzzle of ME/CFS. It also lends to solidifying the infectious cause position. One concern I have is the difference in responsiveness between groups A & B. The reported high rate of responsiveness is with group A, those with Herpes infections only. The responsiveness is much lower for group B, those with Herpes & co-infections. Well, I have been of the belief that most pwc's DO have Herpes & co-infections, and according to this studies conclusion, would therefore fall into the less likely to respond category. But the study does suggest that those fitting the group A criteria have a really good chance of recovery with this treatment, and that's good news for that group at least.

My own experience as a person with highly reactivated CMV and non herpes co-infections is that treating any of the re-activated infections decreases the symptoms of illness significantly. My experience of treating CMV with Vistide is a great example....The drug is only effective for the CMV and not the co-infections, yet I made dramatic improvements with Tx. Of course relapse is a concern if I don't get the co-infections dealt with and that's been my focus since going off the Vistide in December.

This study at the very least puts many more pieces of the puzzle into place. Soon the xmrv story will add more to the puzzle. I think that Dr Lerner is a man of Integrity and, I feel we are extremely fortunate to have him on our side. I'm thankful for his devotion and years of work on our behalf.

Click to expand...

Here's what I got about that Group B; they started off sicker and they actually improved quite substantially (which is why they couldn't be differentiated from Group A significantly) but they still had CFS by Dr. Lerner's definition - which is why he called their progress 'bleak'. But I didn't think their progress was bleak at all - I thought it was pretty good. I'm not sure how he treated them differently after he got this data but apparently he did start treating them differently and he said their numbers were better than the report indicated.

what i am essentially saying is that correlation is not causation.he is labelling a subset with CFS assuming causation when chronic infection with epstein Barr is asymptomatic.If someone has glandular fever then they do have all the symptom of CFS.it does not mean they have the illness.the only way of distinguishing the two is PEM.Most physicians would test for Epstein Barr.if that is positive then that is an exclusion criteria for diagnosing CFS.So by definition active epstein Barr precludes a diagnosis of CFS even under Fukuda. i hope I was clearer that time.sorry for any confusion

This is the relevant part of the FUKUDA paper

Background
The chronic fatigue syndrome is a clinically defined condition (1-4) characterized by severe disabling fatigue and a combination of symptoms that prominently features self-reported impairments in concentration and short-term memory, sleep disturbances, and musculoskeletal pain. Diagnosis of the chronic fatigue syndrome can be made only after alternative medical and psychiatric causes of chronic fatiguing illness have been excluded.

If patients have Epstein Barr virus then they cannot receive a diagnosis of CFS because Epstein Barr is a recognised medical cause of fatigue.Thus a Epstein Barr subset of CFS is impossible.

Click to expand...

Dr. Lerner is not testing his patients for classic signs of active EBV infection. The importance of high antibody levels to early antigens is a real grey area in Science - there is no agreement that this finding denotes disease and therefore it could not be excluded under Fukuda. This type of infection is not going to exclude anyone from being diagnosed with CFS under Fukuda because this type of EBV is not a 'recognized medical cause of fatigue' - Dr. Lerner is trying to make it one. Dr. Lerner is attempting to say that nonpermissive herpesvirus infections do cause disease and that disease happens to be called CFS.

If this kind of infection was an accepted cause of fatigue than physicians would be doing the tests and treating it like they would hepatitis or HIV but they're obviously not doing that. These patients come from all over the country and the world to see Dr. Lerner because he's doing these tests that pick up their abnormalities.

I don't think you're suggesting that we call people with CFS whose illness was triggered by granular fever or infectious mononucleosis and who never recovered - infectious mononucleosis patients - instead of CFS patients? That would out a nice chunk of CFS patients.

I would love to have PEM in there - for sure, that would have been nice - but I'm just not worried about that. Their functionality was in the pits. I'll assume that these peoples inability to function in a pre-treatment and Dr. Lerner's admonitions to them not to exercise was an indication of their PEM.

This is really fascinating, and possibly very significant science for the CFS/ME community...
There seem to be a few significant, and potentially groundbreaking, studies coming out at the moment, such as Huber's work on HERV.

When you say that EBV is exclusionary for CFS, do you mean that basically, if you have EBV you can't have CFS?

I'm totally confused....I thought EBV was very common in CFS patients. Isn't it similar to the other herpesviruses, parvovirus, etc. that tend to show up often in CFS patients?

Also, if you could just clarify how your statement in post #51;
"A person with an EBV infection will easily qualify for a diagnosis of CFS under the FUKUDA criteria"

agrees with your statement in post #62;
"So by definition active epstein Barr precludes a diagnosis of CFS even under Fukuda."

Click to expand...

sure epstein barr symptoms mirror the symptoms of CFS as defined by FUKUDA as long as PEM is not used.in reality however if there is a medical reason for the fatigue such as epstein Barr infection then a formal diagnosis of CFS cannot be given